French Presidential Election Crisis: Party Leaders Consider "Plan B" After Police Search Fillon Office

It is looking increasingly likely, that Francois Fillon who until recently was considered the favorite for the French presidential election in the April/May presidential election, may drop out leaving the frontrunner challenger spot to Marine Le Pen in limbo.

Shortly after news broke that the presidential candidate may have paid out as much as 1 million euros to his wife and children - more than initially alleged - in an ever growing graft scandal, French police searched Francois Fillon"s office in parliament as an inquiry into alleged fake work by his wife threatened his campaign and party leaders began to consider a "Plan B" without him. Fillon had been favorite to win the presidency for the conservative Republicans party until a week ago, when it was reported that his wife Penelope had drawn hundreds of thousands of euros in pay from state funds without doing any work.

Fillon on Tuesday declared that he was a victim of a ‘professional’ plot aimed at derailing his bid to become France’s next president. He only failed to mention Vladimir Putin and the farce would have been complete.

“To my knowledge, in the history of the Fifth Republic, this situation has never occurred” he during a conference in Paris. “Never with less than three months to go before a presidential election has an operation of such magnitude and this professional been staged with the aim of getting rid of a candidate.”

According to Reuters citing the latest opinion poll conducted on Tuesday, 76% of voters were not convinced of his professed innocence. With the inquiry gathering pace, party officials began to wonder whether, and how, they might replace him.

"The way things are going, I think we might have to quickly trigger a plan B," one lawmaker on condition of anonymity told Reuters.

"Plan B. Lots of people are thinking, reflecting and working on it but no one will speak openly about it," said another influential Republicans member of parliament.

Allegations of pay for fake work, published in satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaine, have cast a doubt on the squeaky-clean image that helped Fillon win his party"s primary election over rivals who had faced legal issues in the past. In an amusing tangent, Reuters writes that "the inquiry into whether the hundreds of thousands of euros his wife received in salary was a misuse of taxpayer"s money also highlights a key plank of his campaign - that the state spends too much and half a million public sector jobs should go." Almost as if a politician was... hypocritical.

"This will sicken people who are on the minimum wage or not much more," the second lawmaker said. The biggest fear in the party, he said, was that Fillon would be damaged enough to lose the election, but not enough to pull out.

What Reuters failed to add is that those "sickened" by Fillon"s conduct may just end up voting for Le Pen, whose election would most likely be the final nail in the Eurozone"s coffin.

Meanwhile, even though Fillon has said he would step down as presidential candidate should he be put under formal investigation, it is unclear how The Republicans would find a replacement for him. He was chosen last November in the party"s first ever primary contest, so there is no precedent to look to if he quits with less than three months to go until the election. The scandal has coincided with the Socialist Party"s choice last weekend of a hard-left figure, Benoit Hamon, as its presidential candidate - a move also seen as helping Macron.

A group of right-leaning Socialist lawmakers wrote in Le Monde newspaper on Tuesday that they could not back Hamon, the clearest sign yet that his appointment could tear the party apart, with some tempted to join the Macron camp.

Ironically, even Marine Le Pen is currently facing her own battle with authorities over use of public funds. From midnight, the National Front (FN) leader faces a pay cut of some 7,000 euros a month as punishment from the EU parliament for using money earmarked for a parliamentary assistant to pay one of her own party officials.

Trump to Acting Attorney General Yates: You're Fired!

In a letter hand-delivered to her office Monday evening, President Donald Trump relieved acting Attorney General Sally Yates (shown) of her responsibilities. In a statement issued at the same time, the White House said that Yates “has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.”

The statement added:

[Yates is] weak on borders and very weak on immigration. It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals traveling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

At issue was Yates’ decision not to support Trump’s order, and directing her staff attorneys not to defend it in court challenges. On Monday morning Yates said:

At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.

She also took exception to the Trump administration’s claim that her own department’s Office of Legal Counsel had adequately cleared the order beforehand, ruling that his order was “lawful on its face," insisting,

[That ruling] does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an executive order is wise or just....

I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.

For as long as I am the acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of th[is] executive order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

Law professor Jonathan Adler at Case Western Reserve clarified that Yates didn’t rule on Trump’s executive order: “Yates did not claim she was convinced the order was unlawful, but only that it was not ‘wise or just.’” Adler said that he was “not aware of any instance in which the Justice Department has refused to defend a presumptively lawful executive action on this basis.”

Later Monday evening President Trump named Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to take the place of Yates. Said Boente: “At approximately 9 p.m., I was asked by the president to serve in the capacity of acting attorney general. After having dedicated the last 33 years of my life to this department, I am humbled and incredibly honored to serve as acting attorney general.”

Minutes later he reversed Yates’ directive:

I hereby rescind former acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates’ January 30, 2017 guidance, and direct the men and women of the Department of Justice to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our president.

Pushback against Trump’s executive order “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," issued on Friday, was almost immediate. Confusion reigned at some airports, protests erupted, and even some career diplomats circulated a memo voicing their opposition to it. CEOs from Coca-Cola, Amazon, Ford, and Goldman Sachs expressed dismay at the order, and former President Obama came close to inciting riots with his statement that he “is heartened” by those protests.

One of the most hypocritical statements came from California Democrat Senator Nancy Pelosi. Yates was “fired for upholding the Constitution of the United States," she claimed, adding, “What the Trump administration calls betrayal is an American with the courage to say that the law and the Constitution come first.” This is the same Nancy Pelosi who couldn’t tell the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Speaking before an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress on September 13, 2013, she intoned: “To paraphrase what our founders said in the Constitution of the United States: they said the truths that are self-evident, that every man and woman — that men and women were created equal and that we must move forward in recognition of that.” This is a rough paraphrase of what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. At the time the Constitution was being debated in Philadelphia, Jefferson was abroad.

Of course, if Yates could not in conscience defend Trump’s order in her capacity as acting attorney general, she could have submitted her resignation. That would have been the honorable thing for her to do. Instead, she clung to her position while embarking on a less-than-honorable course of action that was, in a sense, both “fitting” and “sad,” as Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pointed out in a statement:

After eight long years of a lawless Obama Department of Justice, it is fitting — and sad — that the very last act of the Obama DOJ is for the Acting AG to defy the newly elected President, refuse to enforce the law, and force the President to fire her. Sally Yates now joins the ignominious succession, from Eric Holder to Loretta Lynch, of Attorneys General who put brazen partisan interests above fidelity to law.

Trump’s executive order pauses America’s refugee program for four months and indefinitely bans all those from war-ravaged Syria. The order was later clarified Sunday evening, with the president writing on his Facebook page, 

The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion  this is about terror and keeping our country safe.  

Trump did the right thing, twice. First, he invited Sally Yates to take on Loretta Lynch’s responsibilities until his nominee, Jeff Sessions, is confirmed by the Senate. He wanted to give Sessions a free hand in choosing his own people.

Second, when Yates interjected her own personal opinion — not an official ruling — into the media-generated controversy, he did the right thing once again: He fired her.

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

US Now Assessing Effectiveness of Dropping Nukes on Russia & China — Seriously

Amid heightening tensions with China and in the wake of accusations Russia somehow interfered in the election, U.S. Congress has instructed intelligence agencies and the Pentagon’s Strategic Command to assess the ‘survivability’ of Chinese and Russian leaders in the event of an above- or below-ground nuclear strike.

Under ordinary circumstances, such a review could be considered routine, but — given President Donald Trump’s ratcheting up of hostilities with China and the Democratic establishment’s scapegoating of Russia for its own shortcomings — it seems more an indication the U.S. could be preparing for war.

Interestingly, the plan for this analysis came buried in the 2017 NDAA, which former President Barack Obama signed into law two days before Christmas — timing almost certainly intended to deflect attention from several unsavory measures buried in the law’s pages.

This review, had it garnered attention, surely would have set off further debate on the perilous provocation to war with nuclear capable nations.

According to the NDAA, reviewers will perform “an identification of which facilities various senior political and military leaders of each respective country are expected to operate out of during crisis and wartime” and, additionally, the “location and description of above-ground and underground facilities important to the political and military leadership survivability.”

“Key officials and organizations of each respective country involved in managing and operating such facilities, programs, and activities” will also be identified by analysts.

Bloomberg reports, “Under the little-noticed provision in this year’s defense authorization measure, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. Strategic Command — which plans and would execute nuclear strikes — will evaluate the post-attack capabilities of the two nuclear powers. The law mandates a report on Russian and Chinese ‘leadership survivability, command and control and continuity of government programs.’”

READ MORE:  Former CIA and NSA Officials Just Joined Forces & Debunked the Russian "Hack" Conspiracy Thoery

Strategic Command will also evaluate how Chinese and Russian plans relate to the post-nuclear deployment plans of the United States.

“Our experts are drafting an appropriate response,” Strategic Command spokesman Navy Captain Brook DeWalt told Bloomberg in an email, adding, “it’s premature to pass along any details at this point, we can update you further at a later date.”

Written before Trump took office, the planned analysis nevertheless aligns with the president’s statement the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be strengthened — despite his stated goal of rapprochement with Russia.

In December, he told MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” And in a brazen tweet the same month, Trump declared, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

On Friday, Trump ordered Secretary of Defense James Mattis to “initiate a new Nuclear Posture Review to ensure that the United States nuclear deterrent is modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st-century threats and reassure our allies.”

Ohio Representative Michael Turner, who sits on the House Armed Service Committee’s Strategic Forces panel, told Bloomberg via email the U.S. “must understand how China and Russia intend to fight a war and how their leadership will command and control a potential conflict. This knowledge is pivotal to our ability to deter the threat.”

China and Russia, he continued, “have invested considerable effort and resources into understanding how we fight, including how to interfere with our leadership’s communication capabilities.

“We must not ignore gaps in our understanding of key adversary capabilities.”

While posturing about Russia being responsible for hacking and otherwise manipulating either the election or the U.S. populace has subsided since Trump took office, the president has intensified hostilities with China over trade, as well as maritime territorial issues in the South and East China Seas.

Russia and the U.S. ostensively possess some 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — but Moscow has reportedly spent a great deal of time and money upgrading and improving its arsenal, where the U.S. has not.

Assessing the plans of world leaders in the event military action turns nuclear indicates the use of these weapons remains a viable option.

“Nuclear leaders in Russia and China ‘plan to direct nuclear forces from inside command bunkers buried deeply beneath the earth or deeply inside mountains,’ said Bruce Blair, a Princeton University research scholar on nuclear security policy and co-founder of Global Zero, a group devoted to eliminating nuclear weapons,” Bloomberg reports.

With a cascade of contentious executive actions coming nearly every day since Trump took the oath of office, vigilance — particularly concerning bellicose exchanges between the U.S. and China or Russia — is an absolute imperative.

Congresswoman Who Says U.S. Funds ISIS Just Got Back from Syria: Here’s What She Found

January 31, 2017   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, the lawmaker who accused the U.S. government of funding and arming ISIS and introduced a bill to prevent it from happening in future, recently disclosed that she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during her recent trip to Syria. The move has reportedly angered many of her fellow congressmen and women.

Upon returning from the war-stricken nation, Gabbard released the following statement in the form of a press release:

“My visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear: Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.

“As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, ‘Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did.’ I had no answer.”

According to the press release, Gabbard met with refugees, Syrian opposition leaders who led protesters in 2011, widows and family members who fight alongside al-Qaeda groups, pro-Assad troops, humanitarian workers, and students, to name a few. Gabbard also met with high-ranking officials such as Lebanon’s newly-elected President Aon and Prime Minister Hariri, as well as U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, and Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of the Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo.

Initially, Gabbard allegedly had no intention of meeting Assad, as she stated in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so because I felt that it’s important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their suffering, then we’ve got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a possibility that we can achieve peace,” she told Tapper.

The meeting with Assad is incredibly controversial because of numerous allegations by the U.N. that Assad has committed crimes against humanity.

“Whatever you think about President Assad, the fact is that he is the president of Syria,” she added. “In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possibility of a viable peace agreement to occur there has to be a conversation with him.”

Not surprisingly, the media has hyped up this visit as outrageous but has omitted some very glaring hypocrisies that arise as a result of Gabbard’s trip to Syria.

First, the Obama administration and Bush administration both drew serious allegations of war crimes, but if Gabbard had met with either of those former presidents, it’s doubtful anyone would have batted an eyelid.

Second, former Secretary of State John Kerry met with Assad in 2009, even though, after nine years in office, Assad was clearly responsible for all of the things western media has been relentlessly accusing him of doing since 2011.

Third, Gabbard’s meeting symbolizes the ridiculousness of America’s foreign policy decision-making system. A few hundred old men and women who have never been to Syria — nor care to go — sit in a room and deliberate a piece of paper deciding whether or not to drop million dollar tomahawk missiles on a relatively poor country. Even when these decision-makers are well aware of the horror their edicts will unleash, they are never required to visit the country, talk to its people, or understand the situation and better educate themselves. In the case of Syria, Congress wasn’t even required to approve the air campaign that began in 2014, as Obama authorized airstrikes without their approval anyway.

Gabbard’s move should be applauded — not ridiculed. Singling Assad out as some sort of mass-murdering psychopath while foreign leaders routinely meet with alleged war criminals such as Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia’s leadership, and Henry Kissinger, to name a few, is the epitome of U.S.-NATO arrogance.

Gabbard may have met with a mass murderer, but she also met with numerous people on the ground — the people who matter most. After doing so, she concluded:

“I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists—directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

No one can criticize her strategy because, for the last six years, no one has even attempted it.

---

This article (Congresswoman Who Says U.S. Funds ISIS Just Got Back from Syria: Here’s What She Found) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Stefan Molyneux – What Pisses Me Off About President Trump’s “Muslim Ban”

Stefan Molyneux, of Free Domain Radio, points out the hypocrisy of the Left concerning Trump’s temporary  ban on “refugees” from 7 nations that were chosen by the Obama DHS as being security risks. Hypocrisy defines the Left/Globalists. It is not justice, or fairness they are after. No, it is all about power. Period. It is “Our Team” versus “Your Team”. The goal is power.

The Left/Globalists pretend to take the “High Ground”, but in reality are taking the Low Ground. They lie, deceive and look the other way when one of their own does something immoral, illegal or unethical, but scream bloody murder when the “Other Team” does something they did just months, or years, earlier.

The Swine Of The Mainstream Media Are Terrified: We Finally Have A President Who Acts On Behalf of The U.S.

Just look at President Trump go!  Yes!  Enjoy it!  This is the type of thing that all Americans who want to restore the United States to a free nation want to see!  The TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) is not going down the drain: The President is flushing it down the toilet, where it belongs.  Hopefully the toilet paper he used is the New York Times, which published an article covering the death of (as they quoted it) “Obama’s signature trade agreement.”  Here’s an excerpt of that AP article:

“WASHINGTON — President Trump upended America’s traditional, bipartisan trade policy on Monday as he formally abandoned the ambitious, 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership brokered by his predecessor and declared an end to the era of multinational trade agreements that defined global economics for decades.

With the stroke of a pen on his first full weekday in office, Mr. Trump signaled that he plans to follow through on promises to take a more aggressive stance against foreign competitors as part of his “America First” approach. In doing so, he demonstrated that he would not follow old rules, effectively discarding longstanding Republican orthodoxy that expanding global trade was good for the world and America — and that the United States should help write the rules of international commerce.

Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership had not been approved by Congress, Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw not only doomed former President Barack Obama’s signature trade achievement, but also carried broad geopolitical implications in a fast-growing region. The deal, which was to link a dozen nations from Canada and Chile to Australia and Japan in a complex web of trade rules, was sold as a way to permanently tie the United States to East Asia and create an economic bulwark against a rising China.  Instead, Mr. Trump said American workers would be protected against competition from low-wage countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, also parties to the deal.”

There are quite a few items to take note of in the piece.  First, distortion of the facts, as with this example: “…and declared an end to the era of multinational trade agreements that defined global economics for decades.”

That sentence may not seem as if it’s important, but it is, because the use of the word “decades” ties Republican and Democratic administrations into the “soup” of the paradigm: multinational agreements.  It is true in part.  What it leaves out is that the world economies are all currently faltering, but this is part of a broader plan to bankrupt and destroy individual sovereign nations and in the process of doing so, foster dependency upon one another in the mindset of the collective.

By gutting economies, fostering geopolitical upheavals, the changing of boundaries, and the allowance of oligarchs to become inexorably intertwined with “governments” (hence becoming governments in a de facto manner), the “multinational trade agreements” have bypassed laws of individual nations.  The IMF, the World Bank, and the UN have been the brokers, bankers, and (kangaroo) enforcers, respectively, to draw these nations into the global net.

There is more, as with this phrase: “…he [President Trump] demonstrated that he would not follow old rules, effectively discarding longstanding Republican orthodoxy that expanding global trade was good for the world and America…”

Follow the “old rules,” eh?  Such as those slipped under the crack of the front door by the Federal Reserve, the Council of Foreign Relations, and the Bilderbergers that made any compliance with them neither Democrat or Republican…but Globalist.  Longstanding Republican orthodoxy being translated into rigidity and procedure foisted upon the people with the objective of enabling complacency (by the Republicans), and hence the further realization of the planned shift to global governance.

The Democrats see themselves either as revolutionaries or as “socially-conscious” individuals working towards the “betterment” of mankind (i.e. – Marxists).  That “Republican orthodoxy” being a way to polarize the masses into the illusion of one camp or the other, while the alleged Republicans put up a weak/faux resistance and speed along the transition to globalism either directly or indirectly.

The slant and bias is evidenced by this phrase within the article: “…Trump’s decision to withdraw…doomed…former President Barack Obama’s signature trade agreement…”

Not President Trump, mind you…. they made him one of the “average Joe’s” while glowingly giving Obama the lofty title…and showing you, mind you…how we, the American people…are losing a signature trade agreement.  As if it’s a piece of Godiva chocolate being lost, and not offal flushed into the sewers: its true identity.

Nothing of what it is: The President removing a heinous piece of strangling paperwork, a treaty that attempted to circumvent Constitutional procedure and ratification to entangle the US in a GDP and border-destroying relationship that places us on a par with countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam.  With Vietnam?  Really?

By flushing this piece of garbage, the President has already taken a step toward affirming a position not of isolationism, but of sovereign national strength.  The Times unwittingly (or “witlessly” perhaps the better term) allowed this last part to slip through that gives the clear intent of the President’s actions: “…Mr. Trump said American workers would be protected against competition from low-wage countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, also parties to the deal.”

Boy, they love using “Mr.” instead of “President,” don’t they? 

The key to keep in mind here is this is almost a Freudian slip on their part, because it gives the true reason for scrapping the TPP…in the interests of American workers.  It still manages to skew even within the sentence… “low wage countries like Vietnam…”  Low wage?  No.  Slave wages: the slave labor of communism is the actual “economy” of Vietnam.  It also attempts to keep the Democrats focused on the evils of the President, in this targeting for their “porridge” minds: “Oh, he’s destroying a deal that would benefit the poor, low-wage, non-Caucasian workers of Malaysia and Vietnam!”

Those swine of the Mainstream Media can’t detract from the actions that the President is taking, and inwardly they’re terrified.  They are petrified of the hiring freezes on the federal government, terrified of the go-ahead orders with the border fence, and “mortified” by the decision to open those keystone pipeline areas, creating jobs and boosting the economy.  Petrified of a President of America, vs. Thomas More’s “Utopia.”  The President is off to a great start.  It’s going to take quite a while to clean up this mess, but he has the right idea: to institute change without conforming to the existing (and expected) “Republican orthodoxy” paradigm.

The paradigm shift is occurring, and the President is the impetus.  After almost a decade of diseased Marxism and community agitation raised to the level of the highest elected office of the land, we now have an actual President of the United States, a representative of the American people.  Kudos so far, and the praise is deserved.  We the people need to monitor his progress and not let up with either our vigilance or our voice.  It is on us, too, and there’s a long road ahead of us to reversing the course inflicted upon us.  But it’s good to finally have an American President: one who acts on behalf of the United States and the people.

---

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne).  Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape).  He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com or contact him here.

This article may be republished or excerpted with proper attribution to the author and a link to www.SHTFplan.com.

Also Read:

12 Things President Donald Trump MUST Do For America To Be Great Again

“We Have Eight Years Of Serious Damage That Need To Be Repealed” – Obama’s Keeping Busy Before the Trump Inauguration

The Surveillance State Did Not Disappear With The Trump Victory: “It Is Still Lurking And Completely Intact”

Trump Can’t Stop It: “The People Who Have Been Orchestrating The Collapse Have Not Halted Their Agendas”

“We Need To Start Killing People… We Need To Start Killing The White House” – Seattle Social Justice Warrior Caught On Tape Threatening Violence and Demanding Reparations

We recently warned that America is about to see unprecedented protests and rioting from coast to coast.

But don’t take our word for it.

A social justice warrior involved in the Seattle street protests tells you everything you need to know about what the future holds and lends further evidence to the notion that America sits on the precipice of widespread civil unrest.

The woman, who also claims to be a pre-school teacher, implies that it’s time for extreme measures, including but not limited to killing people, starting at the White House.

Just so you know… we need to start killing people… first off we need to start killing the White House… the White House might die… your fucking White House… your fucking White House must go…

As you’ll see below, when she claims it’s time to start killing people she is most likely referring to white people exclusively. But killing isn’t enough.

If you’re white, it’s time you started kicking some of your hard-earned wealth her way, including your cash and your house:

White people… give your fucking money… give your fucking house… your fucking property… we need it fucking all… you need to reparate black and indigenous people right now…. Pay the fuck off… it ain’t just your fucking time.. it’s your fucking money…

Watch the her full speech (and then be sure to register your kids with her pre-school):

Related: Prepare For Anything – A Step By Step Guide

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.

Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 288 people
Date: January 31st, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.